Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Strategic forests of Mesoamerica, with high richness of biodiversity and culture
Evidence B:The EOI is national in scope, covering almost all of the indigenous territories of Panama, an area estimated to be 1,745,000 ha of mature forest. The EOI also describes the significant biodiversity found in Panama, including over 1000 bird and 270 mammal species and more than 10,000 kinds of plants.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: areas with a high level of forest conservation
Evidence B:The EOI does not state the estimated carbon density of Panama’s indigenous forests, but notes that they are estimated to hols 1.38 million tons of carbon. The supporting spatial resource shows a carbon density variation from medium to very high.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: IP rights are clear in Panama and territories are administered lower forms of self-government of each town
Evidence B:The proposed project is focused on indigenous managed and controlled territories in Panama which are held under two distinct legal regimes: indigenous provinces (comarcas) and collective lands, both of which provide some autonomy in the management of natural resources and have fostered the continuation of traditional indigenous governance institutions and traditional management practices.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: It requires greater depth of value to the culture of the sites proposed to address the initiative
Evidence B:The EOI explains the indigenous cosmovision underlying the traditional governance models in existence in the comarcas and collective lands, and that the indigenous population depends on the forests for their livelihoods and cultural survival
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Conservation dynamics require greater tenure rights for indigenous peoples, this should deepen.
Evidence B:The EOI lists general threats to biodiversity in Panama, including habitat loss due to deforestation, expansion of agriculture, development projects, wildlife trafficking, and contamination, as well as specific threats to indigenous territories which mostly center on territorial insecurity (lack of clear land title) and land invasions by loggers and ranchers.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: It is necessary to describe how you can achieve system management of natural resources in indigenous territories, strengthening their own governance frameworks
Evidence B:Panama has a relatively progressive legal framework for indigenous land rights, including the creation of several indigenous Comarcas and the Law 72 on collective land titling, but in practice has failed to title remaining indigenous lands. Panama passed law 37 on consultation/FPIC, but has failed to develop implementing regulations
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Has been identified as beneficiaries of IPLCs and very little as guarantors from their governance systems Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
Evidence B:The Government of Panama has taken few concrete steps to support IPLC led conservation, but has supported a few initiatives, including the creation of the Nargana protected area in the Gunayala Comarca. IPLC’s do not figure prominently in the National Biodiversity Action Plan nor the national REDD+ strategy.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: There are little experiences
Evidence B:The EOI describes several indigenous community led initiatives that have led to the conservation of forests on indigenous lands (71% of remaining primary forest), and achieved a lower rate of deforestation than within the official protected area system. The EOI also notes newer initiatives to incorporate forest conservation in community regulations, and efforts to strengthen the network of community forest monitors.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: It should be explored processes sharing interests of preservation and strengthening of the rights of IPLC, such as those related Ecosystem Manejos the CICA / ACICAFOC / KfW
Evidence B:The EOI describes complementary initiatives of COONAPIP supported by the Tenure Facility, the FAO and the Rainforest Foundation US, as well as other opportunities for co-finance. The supporting resources identify some GEF biodiversity projects in Panama as well.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Limits the actions titling project, you can expand to design policies of territorial management and sustainable use of natural resources
Evidence B:The proposed project is well aligned with the goals of the ICI, with its focus on achieving territorial security for Panama’s indigenous peoples and foster collaborative conservation efforts with the Ministry of Environment.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: further explanation and details of the process and its scope is required
Evidence B:The proposed objectives are clear and the activities are well designed to achieve the expected results, and take a cohesive approach including legal, negotiation, capacity building and communications strategies.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: clarity as to address threats requires more, with actions from you project
Evidence B:The activities are well designed to achieve the desired results and address the described threats– advancing territorial security and putting in place collaborative conservation plans with government would go a long way to managing threats. The question that remains is in relation to the political will of the Panamanian government, which would however likely be positively impacted by GEF support for this project.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Should a more detailed actions to understand the scope of requirements
Evidence B:The EOI does not provide a specific budget amount, but certifies that project activities are doable within the provided budget range, and provides examples of current and past projects in that range.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: There are other sources, small scale that can be paid to the goals pursued with this project COONAPIP
Evidence B:The EOI notes current co-financing (Tenure Facility) and identifies several possibilities for additional co-finance, including the Tenure Facility, the FAO, the InterAmerican Foundation and RF-US.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The spatial impact is high, consider marine areas, not estimated, but are central themes of territories and indigenous cultures
Evidence B:The EOI details areas to be included in the project which total over 1.89 million ha.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: There are indicators of the order of political development, requires you be more explicit in scope in situ in the territories where the initiative gestate
Evidence B:The project aims to achieve territorial security for Panama’s indigenous peoples, which would have broad and lasting positive livelihood impacts and additional cultural impacts including capacity building for indigenous youth and women and better relations with state agencies.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: It is clear and ambitious, even lack detail the insitu actions.
Evidence B:The EOI describes the long term sustainability of the results in terms of the continued conservation contribution of indigenous peoples, the lasting improvements that would be achieved through the project including tenure security and improved public policies and greater access to public conservation funding in Panama.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The EOI describes the absence of content relative to indigenous peoples in the National Biodiversity Action Plan and the NDC, which do not reflect the important contribution of indigenous peoples to forest and biodiversity conservation in Panama. The project would contribute significantly to reducing deforestation, which is a national priority.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: COONAPIP is developing its gender policy, not even a management strategy gender.
Evidence B:The EOI describes current women’s capacity building and empowerment activities carried out by COONAPIP, and that a gender strategy is under development, and notes the importance of including women in the proposed training and capacity building activities.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: details of the actions required more in situ in the territories of indigenous peoples, to demonstrate the extent of innovation results in conservation management.
Evidence B:Being a project at the national scale, the EOI describes the potential to make large scale conservation gains through advancing the territorial security of indigenous people, improving the legal and policy framework and developing collaborative solutions between indigenous peoples and relevant government agencies.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Is the indigenous council of Panama, the integrating natural bodies of government of the PI
Evidence B:The project is led by COONAPIP, a national representative organization of Panama’s seven indigenous peoples, and would be fully implemented by them and their members. COONAPIP uses and NGO ally, PRODESO, as a fiscal conduit and administrative entity given its lack of legal status.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The EOI describes the successful results, in terms of forest conservation, of indigenous led efforts over many years, including initiatives to create protected areas, expand community based forest monitoring and secure indigenous lands.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: There is a mapping of non-indigenous actors in the process. It is not clear about the roles of indigenous organizations outside the COONAPIP
Evidence B:The EOI identifies COONAPIP members and project partners, including the Comarca Ngäbe-Buglé, Comarca Kuna Yala, Comarca Wargandi, Comarca Emberá Wounaan, Comarca Naso Tjër Di, Tierras Colectivas Emberá Wounaan, Tierras Colectivas Emberá de Alto Bayano, Territorio Bribri, Territorios del Pueblo Wounaan, Territorio Kuna de Dagarkunyala and the Territorio Buglé, as well as national and international NGO’s, UN and state agencies.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: It will be required to describe the capacity requirement to implement the project
Evidence B:COONAPIP has a professional staff and can draw on the personnel of the indigenous organization members, and has allied with PRODESO to ensure sufficient project management and accounting capacity.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: He has managed resources, not the scale of the current project
Evidence B:The EOI states that COONAPIP meets all three criteria.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Does not have
Evidence B:COONAPIP does not have experience with GEF projects.